Bulk-update security finding status or severity for up to 100 IDs, returning updated IDs and failed entries with not_found or not_eligible reasons.
Bulk-update issue status/severity (max 100 ids; SOLVED cannot be set manually).
Returns updated_ids plus failed entries with reason not_found or not_eligible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| snoozed_until | No | ||
| severity_override | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: the 100-id batch limit, the SOLVED-manual-set restriction, and the failure reasons (not_found/not_eligible). However it omits permissions, reversibility/idempotency, and what triggers eligibility failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences with the constraint front-loaded and the return shape secondary. No filler, though the parenthetical and quoted return keys make it slightly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers constraints and return structure but leaves reason and snoozed_until unexplained, so an agent cannot fully understand the update semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It covers ids (max 100) and status/severity constraints, but the reason and snoozed_until parameters get no explanation of purpose or format. Partial compensation only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: bulk-update findings' status/severity. The resource 'findings' clearly separates it from the sibling sourcery_bulk_update_groups, though no explicit sibling differentiation is given. Clear but not maximally distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides constraints (max 100 ids, SOLVED cannot be set manually) that imply when this tool applies, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., single update, or when to use reason vs status), and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.